Talk:AARP The Magazine

Merge
KeithTyler added a merge tag here without explanation, so I'm simply starting talk page discussion in order that others might weigh in. The magazine, to be sure, is notable irrespective of its AARP association, if only in view of its massive circulation, but it is also, unlike other geriatric magazines, inextricably linked to AARP, getting its readership only by virtue of its AARP association. I haven't yet developed an opinion apropos of a prospective merge, I suppose. WP:MM suggests that we merge where the instant page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, and I can't imagine that this article could be greatly expanded; OTOH, Consumers Union and Consumer Reports, between which the relationship is similar to that betwixt the two articles of which we write, have separate articles, even as they cover related subjects...[and] have a large overlap (viz., in that CR is published by CU, such that the former is largely incorporated by reference into the latter) (see also ESPN The Magazine and ESPN). At the very least, I think we can safely say that, if this article can't be expanded much, we should merge; if it can be expanded, well, we should expand it. Thoughts? Joe 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That was my general point, and it seemed fairly obvious. By sharing a name with the organization, it seems pretty clear that AARP The Magazine is intended for members of the AARP and to boost visibility of the AARP organization. I don't think you can say the same about CU and CR. CR is not named Consumers Union Monthly. Also, CU is not merely an organization for the sake of its own membership, but an institution that performs a function (product testing). Meanwhile ESPN and ESPN The Magazine are merely parallel media outlets from the same parent source, so it is an even more different animal (ESPN The Magazine is a magazine, ESPN itself is a television channel). - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 23:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you fairly distinguish the CU and ESPN cases from that at hand, and I concur, as I think I did above, in what you've said. I'll merge and redirect if there shouldn't be any substantive objections here or at Talk:American Association of Retired Persons in the next few days.  Joe 03:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)